Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

The most expensive camp movie of all time. In contrast to the straightforwardly tasteless Spaceballs, the conclusion of the prequel trilogy offers the properly attuned audience a multi-layered farce with a magnificently overwrought script that abounds with cartoonish characters, absurd sequences and absolutely zero logic. The film’s greatest enigma is Hayden Christensen; even more so than in the second episode, it is impossible to tell if he is a terrible actor or, conversely, very good at playing a horrible asshole (Ian McDiarmid, on the other hand, portrays the nascent emperor with positively swaggering self-indulgence). Episode III similarly also culminates the other drawbacks of the previous instalment. Apart from the ridiculous emo gloominess, the film’s main fault lies in the fact that the narrative doesn’t develop its own story, but serves merely to establish the motifs of the original trilogy. Generally speaking, the audience’s familiarity with the denouement doesn't automatically mean that a film can’t be engaging – one of the best examples of which is Singer’s Valkyrie. This can be achieved by building tension, developing supporting sub-motifs or parallel storylines, or by simply building a fictional world. But Lucas does not do any of these things, relying instead on superficial fanservice and bluntly and literally filling in the gaps in a story that previously at least offered the promise of ambiguity (though the film also introduces a number of gaps in logic into the saga). And what is the moral and denouement of Episode III and with it the completed saga? The Force reaches equilibrium through several decades of the destructive, capricious behaviour of a childishly unhinged egocentric asshole who first subverts the religiously degenerate Jedi and then literally topples the brilliant manipulator and master of chance, the emperor. On the one hand, we can understand this as a stimulating impetus in relation to prophecy, the interpretation of history and the importance of the individual in history, but it’s not exactly exciting for viewers. So, it's actually nice of Lucas to wrap up this denouement in such a wildly bad movie that invites amused commentary at every moment. (2015-10-11)

Episode III ingeniously develops the conflict with the dark side of the Force and presents Anakin's entire transformation in a supremely realistic and believable way. Definitely the best installment of the new trilogy, and thankfully very close to the qualities of the original Star Wars. (2019-11-30)

Dramaturgically, it’s much more mature and immersive than the two previous episodes. It’s incredibly spectacular and dynamic in its individual attractions, which exquisitely heightens the atmosphere and, for the first time in the new trilogy, revels in fatality and visual darkness. While Lucas is absolutely incapable of any psychological level, and SW in his hands remains a cold showcase of intergalactic filmmaking possibilities and worlds, this instalment at least has the narrative balls and verve to make me gladly forgive him for the mechanical dialogue or the dull character shift by the awful Christensen. It's got major conflict, pivotal moments of the entire saga, and an ultra-cool Yoda and Obi-Wan whose separate story-arcs, capped by two parallel and iconic duels, I would sketch in the starry sky at night and always watch before falling asleep. The transition to A New Hope is finally completed, George Lucas, you have my respect... (2011-12-28)

Episode III is a desperate fugue in which the wandering torso of the Jedi order tries to patch up what it can to end up in utter disillusionment and agony. Lucas indulges the viewer with his spectacular tricks, but almost from the beginning of the film, he amplifies an evil hunch and amplifies the dark undertone that culminates, both audibly and visually, in a scene where Anakin makes a fatal decision in the abandoned Jedi Temple to help his seducer Palpatine. Although George Lucas is a mediocre director, this scene and several others (especially the destruction of the Jedi) are among the most emotionally powerful in the six-part series. In Episode III, he manages to maintain a rhythm and pace that escalates brilliantly towards the end to the wild staccato of hopeless scenes that form the imaginary highlight of the new trilogy. It is unusually naturalistic and completely resonates with the new atmosphere that Star Wars has received both through new episodes and, above all, with a series of computer games. The impression is monstrous, urgent, immediate. There's not much to add – Revenge of the Sith is proof that all the mistakes of the previous two films were worth it, as they built the bridge to the truly grand finale. Complaints – the action scenes are too stretched and suffer from the classic visual gluttony of the digital age, of which Lucas is the guiding spirit. Too many colors and effects lead to clutter. John Williams' music is kind of stiffened, but it works at key moments. Yes, and then the few reminisces of incredibly starchy love dialogues. But very few. Too few to ruin an episode that really doesn't have to be ashamed to be in the company of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. (2005-05-19)

The dark side of the Force suits it. Even so, I don’t think even retrospectively that it makes any more sense than the previous ones; quite the opposite, in the light (excuse me, “the darkness") of this episode I find that the absolute superfluousness of the saga becomes even more obvious. The imbalance in pace is a huge mistake. The first fifteen minutes involves a monumental battle, then we get a boring hour with starched amateur dramatic dialogs and then during the last hour it turns into a serious drama with convincing (as far as the Star Wars universe is concerned) characters. Too bad that the transformation of Anakin into Vader seems unbelievable and rushed. The idea that this mentally unstable character was in fact the embodiment of living charisma that we know from the original trilogy is ridiculous. The weaker moments are saved by the stylish over-acting of Ian McDiarmid. The greatest faux pas is that, although this was supposed to be emotionally tense due to the tragic context, sadly the opposite is true. While on screen we see something technically impressive, it leaves you absolutely cold. (2005-05-20)